Library Juice 1:24 - July 16, 1998

Special Issue on Intellectual Freedom
Contents:
1. Bibliographic Tools for the Alternative Press (letter announcing website)
2. Response to above from a listserv participant (alaoif)
3. Proposed revisions to "Libraries: An American Value," ALA's new statement
4. Issues of Inside Censorship and the ALA
Quote of the day:
"Today, as the United States appears to become ever more conservative
and to retreat from the values of pluralistic democracy on which American
librarianship's intellectual freedom ideology is grounded, the American
library profession, which historically has embraced the dominant ideology,
may be faced with more fundamental choices concerning its very identity
than ever before."
-Louise S. Robbins, from the introduction to her book, _Censorship and
the American Library: The American Library Association's Response to
Threats to Intellectual Freedom, 1939-1969_.
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Bibliographic Tools for the Alternative Press
"Bibliographic Tools for the Alternative Press," from Counterpoise, the
review joural published by the Alternatives in Print Task Force, is now on
the web, at <http://www.jessamyn.com/srrt/AIP/bibtools.html>.
I am cc-ing this to alaoif because I think it's clear that the alternative
press is the key to intellectual freedom in the current era of control of
the publishing and broadcast media by ever larger corporate entities with a
vested interest in controlling the information environment.
I am optimistic about the possibility of ALA's intellectual freedom bodies
beginning to take on these issues aggressively, and to begin supporting the
AIP's efforts under the intellectual freedom banner.
ALA's history in defense of intellectual freedom is not such a long history
that the lack of precedent for explicit advocacy of alternative media
through the OIF should prevent a turn in this direction.
I think it makes sense to ask ALA to respond to changing times and to
recognize and respond to a trend that is a great threat, and perhaps the
greatest threat, to intellectual freedom, despite its being more subtle
than the pattern of small-scale, outright censorship attempts. The hidden
censorship within the publication, marketing and review process is
insidious and a very real threat to democracy. The alternative press,
which is the most excellent example of the benefits of living in America
that can think of, would have a better chance of being an effective answer
if it were given more than lip service by librarians.
___________________________________________________________________________
2. Response to above letter from a listserv participant (alaoif)
Dear Rory,
I would like to thank you for voicing what is perhaps my biggest beef
with ALA's Intellectual Freedom statement and most of the current debate
about censorship and intellectual freedom: the failure to acknowledge a
greater and more commonplace threat than mere, OVERT censorship by
government. It is the lack of outlets for alternative or
"un-homogenized" points of view that is the real problem in this country
right now, and yet it is an issue that is hardly ever brought up.
It is an issue that becomes even more pressing in relation to its
potential effect on library collections. We say we advocate
intellectual freedom, knowledge is power, etc., and yet what do we
offer? What we get from our vendors, and vendors offer what is
published by the big publishing houses, now owned by fewer and larger
conglomerates whose criteria for publication does not emphasize the
quality of a potential publication, but its sales potential, its
potential for promoting other products under the corporation's aegis,
and its unlikelihood of threatening the interests or reputation of that
corporation.
Liana Markley
___________________________________________________________________________
3. Proposed revisions to "Libraries: An American Value," ALA's new statement
This message invites you as individuals to support the revisions to the
proposed ALA intellectual freedom statement, "Libraries: An American Value,"
just now submitted by Carol Reid, Sandy Berman and me. I have sent the text
to June Pinnell-Stephens, chair of the presidential task force, which
published a draft statement to ALA members in March 1998 and held a
follow-up hearing at ALA in Washington last month. Ann Symons has made
intellectual freedom the focus of her ALA presidency. The presidential task
force will prepare a final text this Fall and will submit it to ALA Council
at Midwinter for acceptance as official ALA policy.
This statement is intended to be an important policy document for the 21st
century, designed to be adopted by libraries nationwide. If you support
our more forceful, revised text -- or if you want to make other revisions of
your own -- please write to June Pinnell-Stephens <JuneP[at]muskox.alaska.edu>
IMMEDIATELY. Waiting until the next SRRT Action Council meeting in January
1999 will be too late. --Charles
June Pinnell-Stephens
Chair
Presidential Task Force on Intellectual Freedom
American Library Association
Dear Ms. Pinnell-Stephens,
Thank you for your courtesy when I spoke at the hearing on the draft of the
new ALA intellectual freedom statement held by the Task Force at the ALA
conference last month. Subsequently, SRRT Action Council, pressed for
time, was unable to reach agreement on a specific, revised text. Instead,
Carol Reid, Sanford Berman, and I as individuals are submitting for your
consideration the following proposed revisions (in caps) written by Carol
and modified slightly by Sandy and me.
Carol Reid, editor of the NYLA IFRT Newsletter, former NYLA IFRT
coordinator, and former ALA/SRRT Newsletter editor; Sanford Berman,
Coordinator, ALA/SRRT Hunger, Homelessness, and Poverty Task Force; and
Charles Willett, Coordinator, ALA/SRRT Alternatives in Print Task Force.
LIBRARIES: AN AMERICAN VALUE
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT ALA INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM STATEMENT
JULY 1998
Libraries in America, whether public or special, academic or school,
IDEALLY are a cornerstone of the communities they serve and are essential
to the preservation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Libraries
SHOULD provide the ideas, resources and information imperative for
education, work, recreation and self-government.
Libraries are a legacy to today's generation, offering them the heritage of
the past and the promise of the future. To ensure that libraries flourish
and have the freedom to promote the public good in the 21st century, we
believe certain principles must be guaranteed.
To that end, we affirm this contract with the people we serve:
We defend the constitutional rights of ALL individuals to obtain and use
the library's resources WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE, SEX, RACE, CLASS, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, OR ABILITY TO PAY FOR LIBRARY MATERIALS AND SERVICES;
We value our nation's diversity and strive to offer TO MEET ITS NEEDS BY
developing and providing resources and services to the communities we
serve, AND, BECAUSE THEY IMPEDE DIVERSITY AND ACCESS, WE OPPOSE CENTRALIZED
SELECTION AND THE OUTSOURCING OF COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT AND CATALOGING;
We support the rights of all individuals, including children and young
adults, to determine which resources are appropriate and necessary for
themselves, AND WILL ACTIVELY RESIST ALL EFFORTS AT CENSORSHIP AND ATTEMPTS
TO LIMIT FREE AND EQUAL ACCESS;
We UPHOLD the responsibility of all parents to guide their own children's
use of the library and its resources and services, AND OPPOSE RESTRICTED
ACCESS BASED ON AGE;
We connect people and information by assisting INDIVIDUALS in identifying
and effectively using resources, EMPLOYING SPECIALIZED BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND
INDEXES TO BOTH MAINSTREAM AND ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES;
We protect each individual's privacy and confidentiality in the use of
library resources and services BY EDUCATING STAFF, THE PUBLIC, AND
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ABOUT THESE LEGAL GUARANTEES AS THEY APPLY TO LIBRARY
USERS;
We protect the rights of individuals to express their concerns about
library resources and services BY PROVIDING AVENUES FOR COMPLAINTS,
REQUESTS AND SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING LIBRARY MATERIALS;
We celebrate and preserve our democratic society by providing opportunities
for all individuals to become educated, culturally enriched, and informed,
AND WILL WORK TOWARD THIS IDEAL BY MAKING AVAILABLE THE WIDEST POSSIBLE
RANGE OF IDEAS, THROUGH THE ACQUISITION OF SMALL AND ALTERNATIVE PRESS
MATERIALS, AND THROUGH THE AVOIDANCE OF PROFESSIONAL SELF-CENSORSHIP
STEMMING EITHER FROM IDEOLOGICAL BIAS OR EASE OF ACQUISITION.
WE ENDORSE ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RIGHT TO
FREE EXPRESSION.
Change is constant; but we believe these principles transcend and endure in
a dynamic technological and political environment. We believe further that
through these principles, libraries in the United States can contribute to
a world free of fear and want, a world THAT values and protects freedom of
speech, a world THAT CELEBRATES cultural differences and respects
individual beliefs, and a world where all are truly equal and free.
___________________________________________________________________________
4. Issues of Inside Censorship and the ALA
I wrote the following essay in March, 1998, for Ann Symons' listserv
"presplan," which was being used to gather ideas for her presidential
initiative "Intellectual Freedom 2000." A slightly rewritten version
appears in _Counterpoise_ vol.2 no.1, January 1998. If you find any
sarcasm in it, it's unintentional, and I'll try to strip it out of a future
rewrite. Send me your feedback if anything strikes you.
-Rory Litwin, rlitwin[at]earthlink.net
Note: it's a good source of bibliographic info on the topic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Issues of Inside Censorship and the ALA
Forgive me for my lack of experience in libraries. I am a student and
what I know of the issues that interest me I have learned primarily by
reading.
As I understand things, ALA's own actions in defense of intellectual
freedom so far have been limited to the business of directly fighting
censorship efforts brought against local libraries. It's an important
task but something rather narrow in scope and effect, compared to the
broader, systemic threats to intellectual freedom. Sanford Berman
describes the situation in terms of two types of censorship, "outside"
censorship and "inside" censorship, "outside" censorship efforts coming
from outside of libraries, and "inside" censorship coming from within
our institutions; libraries, publishing houses, etc. As Berman puts it,
"'Outside' censorship may win headlines, but the 'inside' brand is
probably more pervasive, and much more damaging to intellectual
freedom." (Sanford Berman, "'Inside' Censorship", Wisconsin Library
Bulletin, Spring, 1981, pp.21-4. Also see his "Three Kinds of
Censorship that Nobody Talks About", Minnesota Library Association, Vol.
23, No. 7, August/September, 1996.) I see no reason why these deeper
issues cannot be addressed more comprehensively by the ALA's
Intellectual Freedom efforts than they have been to date. Ideally, the
ALA's traditional courage in advocating its interests where they are
controversial ought to extend to the honest pursuit of that freedom where
it is most deeply challenged.
As Ann Symons and the ALA's membership prepare an intellectual freedom
program for her upcoming presidency it seems an ideal time to consider
these issues. It is discouraging to me, however, that while ALA's basic
intellectual freedom documents seem to take a strong stand against
institutional threats to intellectual freedom, and librarians seem to
believe universally that they are its defenders, the process of "inside"
censorship only seems to be picking up steam, in book publishing,
promotion, and review decisions. Librarians don't necessarily see the
process and are commonly unaware of what they can and should do to
counter its effects in their libraries. Also, through their own
decisions, they are increasingly losing their own independence of the
political-economic forces that affect their libraries. What happens to
intellectual freedom as a result? The answer is not to be found by
monitoring outside censorship efforts alone.
ALA's reach extends beyond its influence on library professionals and
ability to protect local libraries. It is a politically influential
organization. I believe it is worthwhile to more directly address some
of the institutional threats to intellectual freedom. I have read
accounts of books being stopped before publication and books being
"killed" in the promotion phase by PR firms working for specific,
nameable industrial entities. These acts of censorship are harmful to
society because they suppress facts that it is valuable, sometimes
essential to know. Often these publications, or attempted publications,
would reveal genuine threats to the public health, threats that are only
recognized much later, due to the successful efforts of industries and
PR firms to suppress the information. Who is there to fight against
this form of censorship? As Herbert Schiller puts it, "The rejected
author, whose book is rejected for political reasons, has no platform on
which to complain." (_Information Inequality_, London: Routledge,
1996.) The present Freedom to Read statement seems dedicated to
defending books from being removed from their shelves by people who are
fearful of what they contain. But books are also being removed from
_publication_, or not selected for review, by people who are fearful of
what they contain. Why not address this type of market-based or
political-based censorship in the ALA's official Intellectual Freedom
statements? At the very least, librarians should be made distinctly aware
of censorship of this type and the resultant necessity of reviewing,
indexing, and selecting alternative publications. But beyond that (and
possibly beyond the scope of this listserv, but worth considering), why
not pursue these issues through ALA's influence in Congress and
relationship with the American Association of Publishers? If we stand for
intellectual freedom, we must to act in the political realm to ensure our
market-neutrality and independence from political forces. (I have recently
read accounts of the sort of "book killing" I am referring to in John
Wiener's article "Murdered Ink," _The Nation_, May 31, 1993, and the book
_Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations
Industry_, by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (Monroe, ME: Common Courage
Press, 1995).)
Assuming a challenging book reaches publication, it still has to be sold to
a vendor. To a degree that is in principle measurable, booksellers are
reducing access to alternative literature by the use of the approval plan
concept and similar systems that end up weeding out alternative literature
as an effect of their efforts to maximize profit margins. A study of
library/vendor relations could be commissioned by ALA or by another group
outside of the libraries themselves to document the real effects of the
approval plan concept (aside from the budgetary savings and loss of jobs in
acquisitions departments, which is already well documented in libraries'
own reports). The potential for loss of intellectual freedom through a
less than vigilant watch over library/vendor relationships is well enough
understood already, however, to give it explicit attention in an
intellectual freedom program.
There is an equal problem with "inside" censorship by the gatekeepers
within the library profession. The ALA's own _Choice_ has a policy of
representing "all viewpoints on controversial or sensitive topics," but, as
Charles Willett has argued, is far from achieving that goal. ("Politically
Controversial Monographs: Role of Publishers, Distributors, Booksellers,
Choice Magazine, and Librarians in Acquiring Them for American Academic
Libraries," _Building on the First Century: Proceedings of the Fifth
National Conference of the Association of College and Research
Libraries_, (Chicago: ACRL, 1989), pp. 238-42.) Reviewers at _Choice_
can be shown to have biased judgment in determining what will be
reviewed. Similar factors limit review of challenging books by other
review journals, with the effect of preventing their selection. Since
this type of "passive censorship" or "inside" censorship is already
contrary to stated policy at _Choice_, it is difficult to think of a
suggestion for a new intellectual freedom policy that would be effective if
it were to be adopted. I think that their are many possible elements to
the answer. The statement should be clearly worded, so that it cannot be
mistaken for an empty ideal or principled verbiage that makes no demands on
anyone. It should address institutional or structurally-based
censorship directly and with a critical intent, without hedging or
avoiding specifics. After all, is the aim of ALA's intellectual freedom
program to defend intellectual freedom, or isn't it?
In terms of bibliographic access there is the further problem of bias in
librarianship, due to a lack of critical reflection on mass publishers'
pervasive marketing and the bias of reviewers. Sanford Berman's work
over the years has frequently addressed this "post-selection" form of
censorship, starting with _Prejudices and Antipathies_ and moving up
through any bibliography of his work. In his "'Inside Censorship"
article (ibid.), Berman describes post-selection barriers other than
poor cataloging. Barriers to access that originate in the unconscious
bias of librarians are clearly an intellectual freedom issue. There is
no good reason for ALA's Intellectual Freedom statements and policies to
continue to neglect these forms of censorship, regardless of whatever
practical limitations they might have to confront.
These issues all point to one primary defense against the overall threat
to intellectual freedom, and that is the awareness, selection, and
extensive use of alternative literature. Above all, I believe that this
solution needs to be specifically included in the Intellectual Freedom
statements - as a solution, and with reference to the censorship it
answers. Much has been written on the importance of the alternative
press as well as how to use it. Charles Willett's recent contribution
to the discussion list "presplan" cited the review journal _Counterpoise_
and the directory Alternative Publishers of Books in North America. The
Alternatives In Print task force or SRRT is a dedicated group but does
not make policy. Not for a lack of interest, or for a lack of effort
either, the AIP is currently not represented on the 21st Century Policy IF
Statement group, which is responsible for drafting a new intellectual
freedom statement. Although the words "intellectual freedom" do not appear
in its name, those words fairly well express AIP's reason for being; yet
the group is left to function largely by itself, and is largely ignored by
the Office of Intellectual Freedom and other IF bodies within ALA. As a
newcomer to the organization, I am unaware of the historical reasons for
the lack of cooperation between these groups, and I am equally unaware of
the reasons these issues have not been taken up more broadly or addressed
more explicitly. Since the set of issues I've discussed has been written on
at length already I have chosen to close with a few quotations from the
literature.
>From Chris Atton, "Beyond the mainstream: Examining Alternative Sources for
Stock Selection," _Library Review_, v.43 No. 4 (1994) pp. 57-64:
"...(B)y limiting ourselves to the publications of the mainstream we
might be unwittingly sustaining a status quo, fostering an information
elite, restricting access to aspects of culture and politics that tend
to be disregarded by mainstream publishers and mass media in
general...The distorting influence of all mass media (and I include
"mass publishing" in this) has been demonstrated for many years in the
work of such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, and the Glasgow University
Media Group." In _The Manufacture of Consent_, Chomsky identifies a
number of ways in which the mass media operate:
by selecting topics
by emphasis
by framing of issues
by filtering information, and
by the bounding of debate."
(Be aware of Chris Atton's recent book, _Alternative Literature: A
Practical Guide for Librarians_, (Gower, Brookfield VT, Hampshire
England, 1996).)
from Charles Willett, (ibid.):
"(Politically controversial books) do not leap automatically from cash
register to the shelves of most college and university libraries. These
books are our _glasnost_, our _samizdat_, our free voice. Every
participant in the chain linking author and reader has a responsibility
to bring them into college and university libraries. Publishers and
distributors should tell librarians what titles are available and why they
are significant. Booksellers should include them in their approval plans,
even if they are not big money makers. Review journals should put aside
ideology and guarantee that all viewpoints on controversial or sensitive
topics are fairly evaluated. Comprehensive bibliographic essays and
collection management reports should consider the whole world, not just the
West. They should consider all points of view, not just academic and
political orthodoxy. Studies and reviews that fail to consider honestly
the intellectual contributions of socialist countries, third world
countries and western dissidents are instruments of propaganda."
from John Buschman, "Towards a New World Information and Communication
Order: A Symposium," _Progressive Librarian_, No. 3, Summer, 1991, pp.
5-23
"Libraries as market-neutral spheres for information are declining...
(W)hat has happened to economics, ownership, and distribution of global
and government information has made basic freedom of information
something of a joke. Libraries, like schools, are becoming linked to
specific business and economic issues. Those issues will come to
dominate the purchasing and administrative actions of libraries in order
to fulfill the economic agenda now set for them. Perhaps most
disturbing, most of this has begun unquestioned."
It is my hope that Ann Symons' Presidency and the Intellectual Freedom 2000
initiative will be an occasion to broaden the scope of ALA's attention to
the issues of inside censorship.